Shock, awe: British government agrees that copyright has gone too far

In its official response to an independent copyright study, the British …

The British government today pledged (PDF) to enact significant changes to copyright law, including orphan works reforms and the introduction of new copyright exceptions. And the tone of the comments was surprising: the government agrees that "copyright currently over-regulates to the detriment of the UK." CD (and perhaps DVD) ripping for personal use should become legal at last—and the government is even keen to see that the consumer rights granted by law can't simply be taken away by contract (such as a "EULA" sticker on a CD demanding that a disk not be ripped).

Responding to an independent study done earlier this year, the government has also endorsed the creation of a digital copyright exchange to facilitate licensing. Within limits, the government endorses the view that "the widest possible exceptions to copyright within the existing EU framework are likely to be beneficial to the UK."

The government's report is also significant for what it pledges not to do. The government says it will not bring forward the "site blocking" provisions of last year's Digital Economy Act. This is evidently not referring to the power of copyright holders to compel individual ISPs to block infringing sites after a lawsuit, but to a more comprehensive system whereby the government maintains a list of sites that all ISPs in the country would be required to block.

Probably the most important announcement is the expansion of copyright exceptions. Unlike the US, the UK does not have a broad, judge-made "fair use" doctrine that allows transformative uses of copyrighted works. Today's report doesn't use the phrase "fair use," but it endorses legalizing many of the same ideas. The government proposes to create "a limited private copying exception," to "widen the exception for non-commercial research," to "widen the exception for library archiving," and "to introduce an exception for parody."

Orphan works are out-of-print works that cannot be used by anyone because their copyright holders cannot be found. Legislation to address the problem has languished in the US Congress for years. The British government has now pledged to enact orphan works reform that would allow "both commercial and cultural uses of orphan works," once a prospective user has conducted a diligent search for the copyright holder and paid standard licensing fees.

The report devotes significant attention to the creation of a Digital Copyright Exchange, a centralized clearinghouse to improve the efficiency of copyright licensing efforts. The project is still in the planning phase and participation in the scheme would be voluntary. But the government vows to study ways to encourage and facilitate the creation of an exchange. One way it will do that is by ensuring that the government's own "Crown copyright" works will be available for licensing.

Patents receive only a brief mention in the report. The government pledges to "resist extensions of patents into sectors which are currently excluded unless there is clear evidence of a benefit to innovation and growth." It also promises to investigate the problems created by patent thickets, although it doesn't endorse any specific proposal for addressing the problem.

The report is significant not only for the specific policies it endorses, but also for the shift in tone it represents. For decades, policymakers around the world have steadily expanded the breadth of copyright and patent protections and ratcheted up enforcement. So the fact that the UK's official copyright agenda now consists mostly of creating new copyright exceptions and abandoning previously announced enforcement efforts suggests the pendulum may finally be swinging in the other direction. The individual reforms are important, but it is most significant as a barometer of the shifting political climate.

Two weeks ago I wrote to my MP asking about copyright and the government's plans for the DEA and my MP informed me that the DEA provisions were going ahead, they're ignoring the Rapporteur and that the content industry will decide what sites are blocked. Now a U-turn.

Good to see the ConDems have their plans clearly laid out to one another and aren't just spinning to whatever the latest whim is.

Does the UK have the same issues with companies patenting "life" like plants? I assume they follow the US lead there as well. It doesn't make any sense that plants are being patented while life cannot be patented (let alone it seems insane to be able to patent plants in general since they are a primary source of our food).

As another Brit, I'll agree that the chances of this being enacted in anywhere *near* this form are slim to none. We may eventually see a watered down version, that will let you rip a CD, if you have permission off the appropriate government agency, signed in triplicate.

What? Intelligent IP reforms? How long before Hollywood starts their campaign of press statements and political "contributions" to "rectify" this? Don't the British know that this kind of crazy talk can get them put on the Special 301 Report!

BTW, who gets the "standard licensing fees" for orphan works, when the rightful owner is in fact unknown?

I still think copyright law should be held exactly as it was originally written. ie: After 15 years, you no longer hold an exclusive copyright on a work, and it then becomes available for others to use. The original artist has those 15 years to milk as much money as they can out of it.

The British government has now pledged to enact orphan works reform that would allow "both commercial and cultural uses of orphan works," once a prospective user has conducted a diligent search for the copyright holder and paid standard licensing fees.

The only part I take issue with is the above. If the copyright holder cannot be found, then to whom do you pay the standard licensing fees? Why are any such fees due at all in such a case?

Seems like unnecessary graft for the publishing cartels, but on the whole, this sounds like solid reform. All they need to do now is address the excessive copyright term lengths.

In the USA anything that will benefit the consumer like being able to rip the CD's or DVD's you buy won't happen until we have laws that stop allowing these big corps to money lobby.money lobbying equals corruption.MAFIAA throws uncountable millions at both reps and dems to tighten their nooses around the necks of us USA consumers.And that is why they will not be seeing a dime out of my pocket.when i need a MAFIAA Product I go out and look for it used somewhere.I make sure my money does not ever go to the greedy beast that is the RIAA and the MPAA.They would love to see an Internet they control.They lobby to take down websites that do not break laws in their country.They lobby to censor those who host no content but have links like a search engine.This is only the beginning.They can all suck my dog's smelly butt.And so can all these so called politicians who are already bought and can not even do a budget for the whole country.I would love to se all dems and reps thrown out on their ass alnog with the MAFIAA.

The only part I take issue with is the above. If the copyright holder cannot be found, then to whom do you pay the standard licensing fees? Why are any such fees due at all in such a case?

Seems like unnecessary graft for the publishing cartels, but on the whole, this sounds like solid reform. All they need to do now is address the excessive copyright term lengths.

Hopefully, the way it works is if the licensing fees sit in a fund, and if the copyright holder comes forward, they get a slice of the pie, and that's it. I agree it has significant problems, but it's at least a step in the right direction, which is something I don't think has happened in a Western country in my lifetime. The closest we've come is riders like the "Fairness in Music Licensing Act", which was a small step in the right direction attached to a giant leap in the wrong direction. All it really did was stop the thugs at ASCAP from double dipping on some restaurants that were playing radio stations (which already pay ASCAP and other PROs).

One thing I think would've been a good choice is to get rid of the crown copyright altogether, and place said works in the public domain.

If the First Amendment worked like Fair Use, you'd have to get Obama's permission to criticize him.

This is funny to me.

Quote:

Mickey Mouse ANGRY

MICKEY MOUSE SMASH

This is funny to me.

Quote:

I still think copyright law should be held exactly as it was originally written. ie: After 15 years, you no longer hold an exclusive copyright on a work, and it then becomes available for others to use. The original artist has those 15 years to milk as much money as they can out of it.

Agreed. I would even be happy with something insane (like 50 years). If you can't get your investment back after that amount of time, it was a bad investment.

I think one of the best parts of this proposed legislation is that "consumer rights granted by law can't simply be taken away by contract (such as a "EULA" sticker on a CD demanding that a disk not be ripped)."

A recent US Supreme Court (or maybe it was an appellate court) ruling allowed contract terms that specifically prevent you from suing, you must go through arbitration, and it prevents group arbitration or class actions as well. Normally these are rights legal rights you hold, but by putting a sticker on the product those rights magically disappear.

Seems like a great model to allow a company to screw all its customers out of small amounts of money that aren't worth individual costs to recuperate. (padding phone bills say).

Hopefully, the way it works is if the licensing fees sit in a fund, and if the copyright holder comes forward, they get a slice of the pie, and that's it. I agree it has significant problems...

That's what I was thinking too.

The only problem is those fees tend to sit in the fund indefinitely, slowly being siphoned off by the industry groups charged with "administering" them. Practically speaking, it ends up amounting to a bribe to industry groups to placate them while the government moves to enact the supporting legislation. At least that's how the music copying levy turned out in Canada.

I want this to be a hot-piece-of-lead-falling-out-of-the-sky type change. I don't want any easy way for this thing to "swing" another direction.

Granted; the period on this pendulum is enormously long, considering its been swinging towards "stronger copyright" since the Statute of Anne. Then again, the laws do have a significant length, which is an important factor. What is gravity's effect on copyright again?

and the government is even keen to see that the consumer rights granted by law can't simply be taken away by contract (such as a "EULA" sticker on a CD demanding that a disk not be ripped).

At this point, any reform to copyright in terms of actual consumer activity is going to require substantial reform to "contracts" in retail/consumer spaces which require no signature, no documentation, and the actual presence of only one of the parties.

While these represent an abhorration (shush) that needs to be abolished when it comes to retail products packaged and presented as an up front, complete and contained purchase, the issue at the same time turns difficult when examining services available to a consumer, and where the dividing line between the two may truly be considered to rest. Especially when the two are highly conflated.

While contracts of various forms are a useful device long supported in common law, I feel like much needs to be done to re-formalize them, and to make sure that less formal arrangements are not given the same standing as a formal contract. While EULAs and similar "licensing agreement" "contracts" may draw upon the principles of spoken and similar less formal contracts, in this day and age with modern technology not only readily available, but actually known to be available to the involved party in these cases, there is no excuse for such an informal act.

The presentation of obtuse legalese is also incredibly problematic, when proper representation would mean substantial hardship to the agreeing party compared to the single purchase price or service cost, while the party presenting the document has only been required to pay for legal services related to the drafting of the document the single time, marginalizing the cost at scale. The only purpose it seems to serve is entirely predatory, and as such requires legislation to force it to follow simplified standards when in a consumer setting, much like the (rather paltry, but a start) legislation enacted for lending and credit. Consumers should not be held to the standards of lawyers when clearly there is no sensible call to assume they would or should have retained counsel to presumably agree to a document enclosed with a product they purchased at retail, and furthermore, consumers should be able to fairly presume that the payment at retail for a product constitutes all that they will have to give up for said purchase.

Still, any reform to the runaway copyright systems is welcome. Hopefully any minor reform won't be used as a taking point to show that plenty has been done, and in turn decry some of the more major constraints that need to be put in place, or put back in place.

Those hoping this is some kind of change do not understand modern politics. This is just a message by a few well positioned people on the government to the content industry. The message reads "Our bank accounts in Switzerland are almost empty. Donations are welcome or else".

Not being one of its subjects, I don't have a very good understanding of how the British government works. How strong is this 'pledge to reform'? What procedural steps must be taken in order to enact these reforms into laws? Who has to agree? What are the timelines involved?

I'm not sure what the commenters are talking about regarding ripping CDs in the US. We can rip CDs to our hearts' content. As I understand it, we can even tenuously break the DRM that rips DVDs. The only thing we can't do (stupidly) is distribute the software that breaks the DRM that rips DVDs.

Of course, that means that there's no legal way to actually rip DVDs, but that says nothing about ripping CDs, which come with no DRM and are therefore perfectly protected by Fair Use.

BTW, who gets the "standard licensing fees" for orphan works, when the rightful owner is in fact unknown?

Knowing the U.K.gov I'd say you'd pay the them the "standard licensing fees" for orphan works.

They're probably just divided out amongst artists.

You're most likely right, though I can't for the life of me understand the rationale for such a move. Why should J.K. Rowling (to pick a name) get a cheque for a work that may well have gone out of print before she was born, and to which she has no relationship? How is that an incentive to her or the arts in general?

The UK government came up with a great report on the 'digital economy' a few years ago. It got ripped up after the unelected Peter Mandelson had lunch with a record industry executive; the revised DEA got shoved through parliament without debate.